Soldiers of Jah (page 13)

AGuest

So what do you hope you would have the courage to do? Faithfully carry out God’s command through Moses, or refuse to follow orders?

Wow. A LOT to read here, for certain. I would like to respond to the original poster's question(s), though, if I may (may you all have peace!). Thank you!

All of the arguments as to what may or may not have actually occurred... and why or why not... notwithstanding, I would do what my Lord would have taught me then... and has taught me. As Moses did on behalf of rebellious, murmuring Israel just three days out of Egypt... as Abraham did when told the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah... as Jeremiah did when told what was to come upon Israel and Jerusalem... and as my Lord himself did when they pierced him: I would plead on behalf of the people... even though they were my enemies... that they be shown mercy. And then I would leave the ultimate choice, decision, act to the Most Holy One of Israel Himself to carry out... if He indeed chose to do so. I would NOT, however, raise MY hand against a single one... nor would I allow ANY of MY family members to do so (to the extent that was within my power).

As to my implied "disobedience"... I totally disagree that it would BE disobedience. Rather, from what I know now it would be OBEDIENCE... to the REAL Covenant based on the Law written on hearts: the Law of Love... even of one's enemies.

And in case He asked me (and I've no doubt He will because, if you take note, that is one of the primary ways the Most Holy One of Israel, indeed all spirit beings, communicate... by asking questions - although they do state things, many things, as well), I would as humbly and kindly as I could... remind the Most Holy One of Israel that although I know vengeance indeed belongs to Him, I know... even moreso... that it does NOT belong to ME. I would then also remind Him of His Law as to ME... and humbly and kindly ask that me and MY family be shown the same mercy I am now showing toward those who SHOULD be devoted to destruction... but whom I do not judge (because my Lord, His Son, has taught me to forgive, just as HE forgives)... because I, too, exist in sin and error and should be devoted to destruction.

I would then put faith in His Word, Christ... who has said to me that by so refraining, showing mercy, and asking for mercy me and my household WOULD be shown such mercy... though HIM... and not have our failure to carry out the command counted against us... as "disobedience".

All of this I would base on HIS (the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies) covenant with ME... which covenant is ratified by the blood of Christ... which blood I will have splashed on the "doorpost" of MY "temple"... so that He is OBLIGATED to keep it with me. Because I, for my part, will have kept MY covenant with HIM... having been obedient to the TRUE "law"... of love. And so I have NO doubt He will keep His... with me.

Seriously, that really is how I would handle it. I do not mean to sound self-righteous or "perfect"... or anything like that. I am neither. I just know what I would do... because I know me... I know Christ... and so, God, through Christ... I know the "person" he (Christ) has taught me to be... and why... and which "order" it REALLY is that I am to "carry out" in a situation like this.

Again, I bid you all peace!

A slave of Christ,

SA

brotherdan

Did God have the right to give life?

Yes?

The did God have the right to take it back?

brotherdan

Psac: Your angle is VERY interesting to me. I just don't know how to be SURE on anything that is not based in God's word. And that is whether you believe it to be the Bible, the apocrypha, or anything else other than your conscience.

When the Bible says that God commanded Israel to kill certain people, I can't say, "Well He didn't really mean that. He meant...."lalalala

You know? No insults implied. I just don't know how I could be so firm on something that I can't prove was not directly said by God.

cofty

AGuest thank you for your comments. I applaud your willingness to argue with god but I have to say your point sounds like an anachronism. You seem to be allowing yourself the luxury of a knowledge of god as revealed in the NT through Jesus and taking that back with you in your theological DeLorean to the Bronze Age.

None of the soldiers in the Israeli army appear to have had such insight. Having said that I do admire you for your refusal to justify a war crime as others seem ready to do.

PSacramento if I was still a believer I would want to be your sort of believer. You are not a slave to the concept of biblical inerrancy - "the word made ink"

Another poster has pointed me at the words of CS Lewis, I suspect you would agree?

Magdalene College, Cambridge 3 July 1963
Dear Mr Beversluis,
Yes. On my view one must apply something of the same sort of explanation to say, the atrocities (and treacheries) of Joshua. I see the grave danger we run by doing so; but the danger of believing in a God whom we cannot but regard as evil, and then, in mere terrified flattery calling Him “good” and worshipping Him, is a still greater danger. The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict. I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.

BrotherdAn you subscribe to a doctrine of "might is right". Your god is beneath me.

believingxjw

"The ultimate question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the inerrancy of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict."

With respect to Mr. Lewis, I believe the better question is whether the doctrine of the goodness of God or that of the literalness of Scripture is to prevail when they conflict.

When as Christians we claim that the Bible is a mix of true and false, of this is from God but not that, we go down a very slippery slope. The obvious question many would have is how in the world then can you claim any of it is true or from God? This one says this part is true or divine another claims something different. It is remindful of when Paul admonished that one says he belongs to Apollos and another says he belongs to Paul but that is Christ divided. One Christian says, the flood is myth, another Joshua did not receive orders from God to kill etc. Yet, that is what the Bible itself is saying. If one part is wrong all parts are wrong.

Many times Jesus used stories to teach a truth. If he is the reflection of his Father and if when we see him we see the Father then it could also be that Jesus taught in a similar fashion to the Father. Does the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 have to be literal for the religious truths in that story to be understood? No. And as Christians we are free to believe it literal or not literal but the truth of it remains the same and that is what is important. Did the flood actually have to occur in every detail, the burning of Sodom, the parting of the Red Sea, the killing of nations in opposition to God, Jonah in the fish, the Ninevites, and so on. No. They did not have to occur in exact detail in order for the truth of it or the religious lesson of it to be understood. But, again, being free Christians we are free to believe literal or not literal and either way the truth of it remains. Either way we have a true lesson that helps us to understand our Father.

The OT is true and real, its teachings are true and real. We can argue the truth of the flood and the burning of Sodom as from God, whether literal or a lesson in parable form it is still a truth. Jesus never said we could dismiss accounts in the OT merely because they appeared implausible. He taught using implausible stories himself but in those stories were life saving truths. So too with the OT, all of it contains true things, true historical events and as well as true lessons in order that we may learn about our God who is both love and a burning fire as his Son also is.

"His winnowing fork is in his hand to thoroughly clear his threshing floor, and to gather the wheat in his barn; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire." Luke 3:17

brotherdan

I think the doctrine of the goodness of God is the more certain of the two. Indeed only that doctrine renders this worship of Him obligatory or even permissible.

I like this quote. However, I think it still is just a response to an unbeliever.

Cofty, you have the right to think that "my" God is beneath you. You are allowed that opinion. But you are being deceptive, are you not? Are you not an atheist? Are you not trying to tear God down so as to show that He is not "real"?

notverylikely

Lets say that God DID kill men, women, and children in the past. Lets say that I tell God, "You're wrong."

Guess who is going to lose that battle?

Dear God, if you exist, you're wrong.

Hmmm.... sees like I win.

For there to be a "bad thing" there must be a "good thing" and where do we get this notion of good and bad? Morals.

Absolutely not. Not wanting to stub your toe has nothing to do with morals. Not wanting to lose your job has nothing to do with morals. Things that negatively affect a person and things that positively effect a person have not a whit to do with morals. Morals and ethics are codes of behavior, not desiring certains effects of behavior.

It may vary, though not as widely as you may think, but it is still there.

I agree that it is there, and it certainly varies far more than you think. It's still unseable in a large scale practical definition as you describe.

Soldiers of Jah

Share this